I am working on a website that is running on IIS that cannot load any images larger than say 4KB to an outside connection. On the local LAN that this box is connected to the page loads without any issues. However, as soon as it goes out through our Microsoft ISA 2006 server to a public site it will not load images or you get only some of the image loading.
I have a dedicated that is oversized for the task (Q6600, 8gig RAM, Sata Raid-10 array), which is running a medium/small vBulletin site.
I have thought about providing free image hosting for the members, so I could have 100-300 people hosting sig images and other graphics on the server, which they in turn would link into forums and other places which could create quite a few requests for those graphics.
Is there anyway to quantify what type of load this static, image hosting would create?
The server currently is typically around .05 to .1 server load with nearly flatlined CPU's.
I haven't been able to find much about this searching, but are people using NAS storage to deliver website images? I've never used NAS before and am not familiar with their performance.
i have set up a sever with certain software exactly the way i want it. However, there is some extra stuff i need to install on it.
I am running Centos 5.1 and would like to run some command possibly via ssh which would create an entire image of the server in a disk format such as ISO and then if need be, reinstall the basic operating system and restore the ISO back up if need be.
Is this possible?
If so how and how would i restore the image as well?
I need to find out what would be the best software to run an image website for one of my clients, there is only one domain so I've considered using LiteSpeed Standard (Free)... What server do you think would be the best?
All I need is PHP support for the image viewer software.
I own a social network generating over 50 million page views a month. Currently, I use only one massive server. I want to add in a new server just for image serving, as my current server is killing me with high bandwidth costs.
Server A runs the website and the logic Server B runs runs the images
What would be a good architecture between the two servers, given that they ARE NOT IN THE SAME hosting infrastructure (SoftLayer is not a great option if you want alot of bandwidth)
If a user changes his photo on Server A which runs the site, somehow Server B must be notified and gets a hold of the new image..... what would be the most technically feasible and optimum way to achieve this?
I just got a new server, and for some reason it is as though it always sends out codes to your browser to completely reload (like hard refresh) all images... Even if you hit "Refresh" in firefox, it wants to reload ALL Images. I uploaded the same EXACT files/webpage that it is doing this to on another server and it treats it normally, Firefox caches it. But on my server it wants to reload the images each and every time.
Tried on multiple computers, same thing.
Anyone know where this 'setting' might be? I do have full access to the server, though I was not the one to set it all up initially.
I have had 2 drives fail on me in 2 weeks, and had to completely redo my server's configuration and security.
I would like to tell my tech to make an image of the current server, just so that the firewall and settings are all saved, and can be restored if this happpens again.
How should I go about doing this, and what can I tell my tech to do so that he does this in the best, most efficient way?
I have 2 live websites on there now (not an insane amountt of traffic), so I am assuming the sites current state will be in the image, which I don't mind, as I can just restore a recent site backup if the site happens to go down again.
Please let me know your thoughts!
( i am assuming i should try to delete as much junk off of the server as possible to make the image smaller)
Anyone know where i could find some software like this, it looks about 6 years old www.hallogram.com/leadtool/imgsrv ( see meta tags )
the software is for generating images like this through the querystring localhost/images/53065_383.fpx?wid* =167&ftr=8&effect=dropshadow,0x000* 000,10,8,120,8&cvt=jpeg
the closest i have found is www.scene7.com/solutions/dynamic_imaging.asp (its only a web service) and over 10k yearly
I have a solution on how remotely using IP KVM and WinPX to install images-based windows server.
But we need a solution that can automate this process.
This is because I need to provide a hight availably service, and if our web cluster is taking hight load I want to be able to clone a new server for master image and get it work in a cluster.
Anyone know of some good server load testers ( commercial )?
Im not looking for application based load testing, I need real web server load testing... need to see how much traffic this one site can take before it cries.
I recently changed my small image hosting website to a dedicated server.
My previous server was a cPanel.
Current server is Directadmin.
I've restored the database and files, however I've noticed that the URL upload (Where you input the URL to a image file, and the script grabs the image and reuploads on the server) doesn't seem to work.
Half of the admin panel is distorted and missing half of the options.
I'm having the oddest issue. For some reason, some of the websites on my server load fine, and some take a really long time to load (2 minutes).
Now, the server load is fine, and the size of the sites aren't the issue either. I've restarted Apache and a couple more services, and still the same sites seem to load very slow.
What could be causing this since it's only effecting certain websites?
I am not sure if many of you have been getting this same spam. But I've been getting spam about sexual topics and the email is just an image with words written on it.
Sometimes the email has words too such as what is written below.
Quote:
Doees Using sexual Body Langauge to Attract Women Really Works? www. med72. com. Chicago Bulls' Masecot Sued For Baad High-Five
I was wondering if you know of a way to block those emails.
I installed imagemagick perl module but it is still giving off this error
Can't locate Image/Magick.pm in @INC (@INC contains: /home/user/real/mgmt/perl /usr/local/lib/perl5/5.8.8/i686-linux /usr/local/lib/perl5/5.8.8 /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/i686-linux /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8 /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl .) at /home/user/real/mgmt/perl/real/Image.pm line 33. BEGIN failed--compilation aborted at /home/user/real/mgmt/perl/real/Image.pm line 33. Compilation failed in require at gallery.pl line 42. BEGIN failed--compilation aborted at gallery.pl line 42.
I have developed website which will allow user to upload 1-2 photos and also allow to see other users photo and rate them. For this I have planned to go for VPS. I am also thinking of another alternative of using image hosting service, where I will keep all user photos on image hosting server and embed links given by image server in my webpage.
Now my question is.
1) Using image hosting is faster(respone time for each user) than VPS?
2) How exactly using image hosting works. when user request web page from my server, will my server go and fetch entire image from image server and then send final result to user brower?
where I can host images for my site. It will be thousands of smaller image like 5k - 30k. I am looking at free sites like imageshak. They say in their terms of service that I can host images for my site as long as I don't host all my images. So do you think that I could put like 20 thousand images on their site? These images would not get accessed too much so it won't slam their servers or anything.
I created a 4GB disk image for a virtual machine in Xen. (I have root on the physical box, so please don't tell me to contact my VPS provider!)
The disk was filling up, so I took the advice online and created a 6GB file with dd (zero-filled), cat'ed it to the end of my disk file, and then...
[matt@babe centos]$ sudo resize2fs -f ./cent.img resize2fs 1.39 (29-May-2006) resize2fs: Bad magic number in super-block while trying to open ./cent.img Couldn't find valid filesystem superblock. Of course, fsck won't take a disk image, only an actual partition. And I can't mount it, since I get the same error about a bad superblock.
The VM actually boots up fine, but it only sees 4GB of what's now a 10GB file.
I can use losetup to mount it on a /dev, but still get fsck errors:
[matt@babe centos]$ sudo fsck.ext3 -b 8193 /dev/loop3 e2fsck 1.39 (29-May-2006) fsck.ext3: Bad magic number in super-block while trying to open /dev/loop3
The superblock could not be read or does not describe a correct ext2 filesystem. If the device is valid and it really contains an ext2 filesystem (and not swap or ufs or something else), then the superblock is corrupt, and you might try running e2fsck with an alternate superblock: e2fsck -b 8193 <device>
I don't know what blocksize was used, so I don't know where to look for a superblock... (I'm out of my league on fsck'ing virtual disks.)
The thing boots fine and is non-mission-critical right now, so worst-case, I can just mount it, rsync the data to the host, and then set up a new machine and rsync that in... I'd just rather not go through that hassle if I don't have to.
My goal is to block hotlinking of fullsize images and display a image when they attempt it... but allow clickable thumbnails to be shown. For some reason the following isn't working...
My htaccess looks like this:
RewriteEngine On RewriteBase /images
#Allow if it's not from another website RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} ^$ [OR] RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} ^[url] RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} ^[url]
#Allow if it's the hotlink.gif RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} hotlink.gif [NC,OR]
#Pass through thumbnails or hightlights as-is RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} .thumb.jpg$ [NC,OR]
#Return an anti-hotlink gif in place of any visual media RewriteRule .*.(jpe?g|gif|bmp|png)$ css/images/hotlink.gif [R,L,NC]
i have a forum site which is running on a vps 45gb space and 2000gb put i would like to offer my members a means to upload images small files max 5-10mb just with in the site but i would like to use a totally new server are there any shared host that will allow this has i will use a scrpit has well on it
I have started a new image hosting website and currently i alloted 7 GB Disk Space and 30GB BW. I know it will not be enough after the site get famous. So which host i can go for to be in a safer side with my image hosting website?
I am having a win 2003 server with a static ip and i have hosted 2 web sites in the iis server but no images are been displayed is it something to do with the designing of the site or some problem in my hosting,